john5746

I am in reality, talking about this war, not wars in the past. Let's just drop a couple of A-bombs on them. Worked before. That will save us from having to stay there 100 years. Nope, I was saying the contrary, hence the irony that we were concentrating on soldier deaths. Relavent, but not primary. Try to improve your reading comprehension. It may save you from arguing with yourself. So what is victory to you? When a republican president says it's time to come home? We have had nothing but military victories since the start, so how are we losing? Is it measured in any way or just a gut feel? Is there a certain level of violence that is Ok or is it when only Iraqis do the fighting or is it low unemployment or when the Iraqi government says so? When can we say Victory? I agree, but I am not one of them. I already consider Bush one of the worst Presidents, right up there with Carter, even if he finishes Iraq this year. I think Bush had good intentions, but that is not enough. I hope Iraq the best, hopefully as a friend to the US, but I recognize they may need to be friendly with Iran and Syria as well. I don't want to continue dragging all the terrorist into that country so we can battle them there. It is a global war on terror, not a funnel them into Iraq war on terror. I was responding to Paranoia, whom I respect, not you. I am grown up and mature. Let the evidence in this thread reveal who has acted childishly.

Yeah, Yeah, we can all play these games. I can imagine Eisenhower invading Mexico during WWII to bring democracy there and Roosevelt not mentioning Hitler, except to say he was in a bunker somewhere and not bothering anyone. Let's stay in reality, OK? I typed up a response citing how I do not hate Bush and actually support Patraeus, but since you had taken a little snipet way out of context and tried to sabotage my character by implying that I was just a Bush hater, I don't think it merits such a response. I truly believe there are people on both sides of the issue that have the interests of their country, Iraq and the world at heart. If you want to close your ears to any disagreements and throw manure on them, that is your problem, not mine.

I think that some will eventually fit into society better than they would have living in that commune, while some will endure hardships. I am sure many of the slaves suffered more after being free than before, even in the North - but the cycle had to be broken. Marriage is a legal partnership between two adults to share resources and raise children. This is a foundation of society, so society does have an interest in keeping these partnerships and settling disputes. I disagree with polygamy, I think it complicates the issue and is too easily used to degrade women's rights. I understand that men like to spread their seed, but that doesn't make it best for society. My problem in this particular case though is more to do with the cult mentality. I can see how a woman would feel afraid to leave - what choice does she have? Her whole world as she knows it is in there, she has no tools for survival outside of that place, especially for her children. It is akin to saying that the poor choose to be that way. Some have no choice. Religious freedom should just be about belief. You are free to believe whatever you want, but not free to do whatever you want. Religion should get no preference when it comes to the rights and well-being of others. If it is OK to deny medical treatment to a minor for religious reasons, then it must be OK for a Parent to deny their child medical treatment period.

I wouldn't say nothing - for people truly in the middle, trying to weight pluses and minuses, well everything matters. Maybe a mountain out of a mole hill would be better. In my attempt to be brief, I didn't express myself as clearly as I should. I think Obama himself recovers better than Hillary, because he is more likable, IMO. But the talk shows are much less likely to make jokes of Obama than they are of Hillary from what I have seen. She also gets damage from Bill, who only makes national news when he says something controversial or stupid. I think you made an excellent point regarding the media self-correcting. The media is huge and diverse, so sometimes its more of a segment war against one another, but usually its just reactions to feedback from themselves.

I think the argument that extending the primary season will weaken both candidates is holding true. Both Obama and Clinton have been weakened. If you talk long enough, you will say something that will offend someone or something that is incorrect, etc. the only thing that has become apparent is that Obama is human and that he recovers from mistakes better than Clinton, with help from the media, IMO.

After reading through this thread, I have a solution. We need a media Czar to head up the War on Bias.

So let's listen to one climatologist, which replaced several others that have "retired"? Are we even sure that a consensus of generals agree or are even aware of his strategy? He is basically asking us to trust him on this, not presenting a bunch of data as evidence. I appreciate the importance of troop deaths, but if the prime motivation is to reduce American troop deaths, the answer is obvious - get out. So, I would like to see similar charts with Iraqi deaths, Iraqi troop levels, expenditures and so on. This surge is supposed to allow Iraq to get its act together, so we can leave EARLIER.

Well, God could be doing it. I mean, we have to keep that option open.

I will spend it on some worthless gadget, then the money will trickle down to those who need it - stock investors, CEO's and chinese.

I agree, IMO either her lawyers or Wal-Mart is at fault. Unless her family was warned that this would happen, they should not be punished. The lawyers should have to pay.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/23/AR2008032301706.html The both do it. McCain for President.

I didn't catch her speech, but I really don't see that it lends anything to her "experience" even if it were true. Sounds like embellishment of a story. Many do it, all the time. I wouldn't be surprised if she actually remembered it that way - until the evidence was shown.

yep, silly indeed.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/14/obama-religion-should-play-role-in-climate-change/ http://notverybright.wordpress.com/2007/10/21/obama-and-religion/ Thanks for the link regarding injections - I didn't know that about McCain. I don't know any politician that would tell the parent they are wrong on that issue in a town hall, but he overstated the case, no doubt. I would score Obama slightly ahead of McCain on the science-friendly issue, while scoring McCain slightly ahead on religion in the public square issue. McCain needs to pander some to the religious right, while Obama has the unique issue of the African American religious left. The reverend Wright issue is still bothering me, but I am hoping Obama can talk to that crowd as a President in a way no one else can. I think many whites have come to terms with racism, but many in the black community have not(it is of course easier for whites). Maybe Obama can improve this situation a little. It would be racist indeed to elect him only for that reason, but I see it only as a plus, not the main reason. As for the science-religion issue, I really don't see a big difference between the two, but I could see someone supporting the democrats for this election on that issue.

This last incident with McCain has bothered me enough to lean towards Obama. I am starting to think McCain, when stressed, cannot retain details. I think he may be too old to take the stress this job will demand. I will keep watching and see.

Umm, when a majority of Iraqis let us??

In other words, luck or karma is your opinion on happenings. Yes, people have subjective opinions on things that happen around them.

Unfortunately, I don't see any evidence that this current generation isn't angry as well. They also seem to act on their anger more than previous generations as well. Many are so concerned about rap songs and hollywood, but I think this guy can be far more dangerous.

As for me, I was in the shocked category. I have never been to a black chuch, haven't been to many white churches for that matter. I was hoping this wasn't considered normal, but apparently it seems to be. Mrs. Obama's proud statement and Obama's flag pin omission start to look less ridiculus after watching this retard flap his jaws. All men of faith have said something stupid now and again. Since Americans think their president needs to embrace fairy tales, they need to play that game, especially on the republican side. To get anything done in the black community, Obama needed to be a part of an important black church. McCain, who bashed the evangelicals in 2000 is playing his game as well. I think this comparison is much different in terms of degree though. This doesn't change my opinion of Obama - I know he is just another politician, but it does change my opinion of churches in America. I am more concerned about the respect we give to religious leaders now than I was before. This guy might be helping kids get off the streets, but he is poisoning their minds. Making every tragedy another conspiracy planned by the white government.

http://sgpropertypress.wordpress.com/2007/12/18/greenspan-favours-govt-bailout-for-home-owners/ Not sure what Greenspan said at first, but he seemed to favor cash bailouts eventually.

http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/historical_war_costs/ http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/current_spending_vs_historical_highs/index.html http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/fy09_dod_request_global/ I haven't cross-checked these with other sources, but common sense tells me that nation building would be more expensive than most wars, but WWII would have been a much larger impact on the nation - the economy itself was driven towards the war effort.

I want revenge as well, but the people who are planning to attack us in the future are probably not those who had direct participation in 9/11. Most of those are dead or captured. We are fighting a virus that spreads through a network, not on a stand-alone server. It is dumb to spend all your resources on one server, but it is also dumb to ignore the network as a real threat. Once you go in and take out the firewall and remove the anti-virus off a server, do you expect the virus to sit there and not grow and spread through the network? I think you make a very valid point with Zarqawi, but I think they also captured Abu Shahid and killed Abu Ayyub al-Masri, who may have established Al Qaeda in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion. These guys were involved in overseas networking. They are not just concerned with Iraq. A better answer for Obama would have been that after we pull out our troops, we would continue to support Iraq in their effort to fight terrorism. We would stress operational support, rather than sending troops right back into Iraq. I guess that wouldn't sound strong like Bush, but this guy doesn't want to be him, does he? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/01/iraq.alqaida http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070724-9.html Maybe Obama can get a little taste of how it feels to be a white republican being called racist because of a hurricane.

So it isn't a Global war on terror? It's only Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Didn't they take out some high ranking Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq? Obama's main seperation from the other candidates is: 1) He didn't vote to allow Bush to use force against a dictator who most thought possessed WMD. Nevermind that Obama wasn't faced with that actual vote and nevermind that Saddam proved that the threat of force was more than necessary to have inspections - he bluffed all the way to the end. Having the threat of force was the right thing to do, invading before finishing the inspections was the mistake. Clinton is a dumbass for not making this argument clear, she loses. Basically, if we have intelligence that Iran has several nukes on long range missles, will Obama ask for any military authorization? Is it different when he asks for it? 2) Obama is a great speaker and an African American. He also seems to work well with others. This is what truly seperates him from the rest, IMO and it is an important difference. Since Obama is a good speaker, I think he should be able to say what he means. I thought the exact same thing from his exchange with McCain. The media played it up as Obama winning the exchange, but I think Obama lost. He said he would go after Al Qaeda if they get a foothold there. He did not deny that they are currently there, only that it was Bush's fault. That ain't gonna fly as President. He needs to deal with the problems he inherits, not continue to whine about how they came about. The media, especially NBC has been so biased against Hillary that it initially turned me off to Obama. I finally realized that and I support Obama over Hillary now, but really because of style. Style is important - as Reagan demonstrated. I am one of those moderates that McCain and Obama will be fighting for in the general election. Currently, McCain has the better of the fight, IMO. Obama is trying to paint McCain as another Bush, which doesn't work. McCain is painting Obama as very liberal, which does work, but can be fixed during the general election. Both have crossover appeal, although McCain has a better history of that - because he has a history! Both are perceived as weak on the economy. Both are perceived as moderate on immigration. It is obvious to me that McCain will try to surround himself with Reagan republicans, Obama will have lots of pressure to bring in minorities and fresh faces.

Well, I agree that they appear to be placing a democracy in place, but I would not call it a democratic revolution. I would call it a revolution that will result in a new democracy. The pros and cons of any seperation should be weighed, of course keeping it peaceful takes a big burden off the con column. I don't know enough about the area to have an educated opinion, although the carnage during the war would make it understandable that a seperation would be desirable. I hope it works out well regardless.

I agree with Severian on this one. I think you have to take the original country as a whole to determine the democratic process. If a vote is taken and the majority decide, then that is democracy in action. Anything else is revolution, IMO.